D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Yora]

Is anybody else already sick to the bone of DND5e discussions?

On Enworld there are a couple of quite interesting and constructive ones.

[Knaight]

Math and debate aren't the same thing. That's why you get spherical cows in a vacuum. Reductio ad absurdum in debate is when one side reduces an argument to its furthest extreme and then ridicules the result. So if I say that such-and-such shouldn't be a class, then someone else says "Well if that's not a class, then rogue shouldn't be a class and neither should fighter or wizard and then we just don't have any classes at all and that's just stupid!" It doesn't address the actual argument made. I have a better example, but it's political in nature and a hot-button topic right now and I don't want to derail the thread.

That isn't Reductio ad absurdum. That's a false dichotomy, wherein it presents the only options of a particular class existing, or there being no classes at all, when the option of a game consisting only of other classes exists. It is probably also a slippery slope argument in practice, but this does depend on the exact reasoning.

[RedWarlock]

Is anybody else already sick to the bone of DND5e discussions?

You're asking this IN the D&D 5e discussion thread? Seriously?

[TheAbstruseOne]

On Enworld there are a couple of quite interesting and constructive ones.

I'd really like an outside opinion on some of these damn threads I'm in on that site...feels like I'm banging my head against the wall and it'd be good to know that at least some good is coming out of it.

[TheAbstruseOne]

New question for discussion: Now that they've done Keep on the Borderlands, what classic module would you like to see them produce for the next playtest packet (assuming there's a new module included)?

[Scots Dragon]

Tomb of Horrors.

Because a module you can escape from with your character's life is simply not worth bothering with.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Tomb of Horrors.

Because a module you can escape from with your character's life is simply not worth bothering with.

I'm working on Temple of Elemental Evil right now just to see how flexible the playtest material we have is. Having to do a lot of fudging and reskinning to make it work. For example, the spider in the moathouse looks surprisingly like a bugbear (it's a non-venomous giant spider).

But yeah...this thing's looking very deadly if you don't play old school style, with pack horses and meat shields-- err, I mean hirelings.

[king.com]

Personally I want a scenario packet that isnt just a dungeon crawl, something that gives enough freedom for players to actually take advantage of the 'think therfore it is' skill system.

[Fatebreaker]

New question for discussion: Now that they've done Keep on the Borderlands, what classic module would you like to see them produce for the next playtest packet (assuming there's a new module included)?

I'd actually like to see them not do a classic module.

Besides the fact that I'd like to see a module designed to fit the system in place, I really want to see what people think without the nostalgia goggles.

Something from late 3.x or from 4e would also be a nice way to say, "Hey, this really can play all editions!" But personally, I'd like to see a custom scenario, one designed to take advantage of what 5e actually brings to the table. I'm not sure what that scenario is off the top of my head... but I'd like to see what WotC thinks it is. I think that would be very telling.

[Yora]

Sunless Citadel.

Also kind of a classic, but unlike Keep on the Borderland it's actually really good. It has a plot, NPCs to talk to, and features most of the situations that new players have to learn the rules for.

[Saph]

Writeup of Session 2 of our group's playthrough is done, and it's going to be the last.

General verdict on the new edition has been "meh". Combats are fast but highly repetitive. Minimal tactics or options in battle. Module is boring. We're probably not going to try the playtest again unless something unusually exciting comes up.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Writeup of Session 2 of our group's playthrough is done, and it's going to be the last.

General verdict on the new edition has been "meh". Combats are fast but highly repetitive. Minimal tactics or options in battle. Module is boring. We're probably not going to try the playtest again unless something unusually exciting comes up.

Don't completely dismiss it, just put it on the back burner for a while. Wait for more playtest packets to come out and try it again in a few months. Especially if your biggest problem is the repetitive feel of combat and lack of tactical options, wait for the advanced gridded combat rules modules. This isn't just my fanboying over the new edition and championing it (which I kind of am), but because I really think the perspective of people who don't like the stripped down combat of previous editions is an important once they start introducing all the advanced rules. The game needs to be able to appeal to both the old school 1st ed fans as well as the people who liked the nuanced tactics of 4e.

The reason I want that opinion to be voiced in playtests as well is because I like both approaches and want them both to not only work well in and of themselves, but also work together seamlessly. I want to be able to use both in the same campaign with the same party depending on story needs. Players are exploring a cave system that is rumored to have a hydra inside with a few mindless monsters like oozes and bears, advanced tactics are going to get in the way since the enemies will typically be just attacking whatever's the biggest threat or closest. But when they kill the hydra and find out it's actually just a huge guard dog for an outcast drow mage's labyrinth and the cult he's formed around himself of intelligent beings, I want to be able to switch to that gridded and highly tactical style combat once they're fighting things that are thinking more than "Ouch! Attack! Looks yummy, attack!" and more along the lines of "Have to move the fighter so I can open a crack in the line so I can kill the spellcaster before he can lock down my grunts and try to isolate the cleric toward where my assassin is hiding in the shadows and so I can bring in my zombie reinforcements and..."

[The J Pizzel]

The reason I want that opinion to be voiced in playtests as well is because I like both approaches and want them both to not only work well in and of themselves, but also work together seamlessly. I want to be able to use both in the same campaign with the same party depending on story needs. Players are exploring a cave system that is rumored to have a hydra inside with a few mindless monsters like oozes and bears, advanced tactics are going to get in the way since the enemies will typically be just attacking whatever's the biggest threat or closest. But when they kill the hydra and find out it's actually just a huge guard dog for an outcast drow mage's labyrinth and the cult he's formed around himself of intelligent beings, I want to be able to switch to that gridded and highly tactical style combat once they're fighting things that are thinking more than "Ouch! Attack! Looks yummy, attack!" and more along the lines of "Have to move the fighter so I can open a crack in the line so I can kill the spellcaster before he can lock down my grunts and try to isolate the cleric toward where my assassin is hiding in the shadows and so I can bring in my zombie reinforcements and..."

Words can't express how much I agree with this. This is EXACTLY what I want. Infact, this is what we've already done in the first session of our playtest. The first fight took place in the woods and was a simple skirmish, no tiles or mini's needed. The rest were more complex.

We're finishing our playtest tonight so I'll write a big write-up like Saph's tomorrow. Our first impressions were pretty much down the middle. Our rogue loved it, fighter was meh, wizzie was thrilled, war priest hated it. I, as the DM enjoyed it immensely, but for several reasons. I'll get more into in my write-up tomorrow.

Just wanted to say that I agreed with Abtruse.

Also, Abtruse...Orange, Texas? Dude, I'm from Lake Charles, La! I'm right over the Sabine!

[Zombimode]

wait for the advanced gridded combat rules modules.

Tactical depth and using a grid are completely unrelated.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Tactical depth and using a grid are completely unrelated.

True, but exploiting shape is probably the easiest way to add depth to a game. And good luck keeping track of complex shapes without a map with miniatures on it.

[Knaight]

True, but exploiting shape is probably the easiest way to add depth to a game. And good luck keeping track of complex shapes without a map with miniatures on it.

There's more to shape than grids. A surprising amount of depth can be involved in a zone system, which also simplifies things nicely.

[kyoryu]

There's more to shape than grids. A surprising amount of depth can be involved in a zone system, which also simplifies things nicely.

I seem to recall this argument from a prior thread. Are there any examples of systems that successfully implement a "zone" system?

[Person_Man]

Tactical depth and using a grid are completely unrelated.

Agreed.

The "basic" D&D Next could have included plenty of things which encouraged tactical depth without a battle grid. A Raising the Stakes rule, a greater variety of class abilities/powers/spells, more flexible abilities/spells/powers (ie, fireball can be used to create fire in many different ways, and not just a single explosion of fire in a 20 ft radius), a greater variety of effects (ie, not boiling everything down into a Combat Advantage/Disadvantage), etc.

Having a battle grid does not necessarily increase tactical depth. It just facilitates a very specific type of tactical depth (movement, range, blocking, triggered effects like Attacks of Opportunity, etc) which are somewhat harder to pull off in the theater of the mind. And if Spring Attack remains a default rule for everyone (where you can move, use an Action, and then continue movement) then that specific form of tactical depth will never exist, regardless of whether or not you use a battle grid.

[kyoryu]

And if Spring Attack remains a default rule for everyone (where you can move, use an Action, and then continue movement) then that specific form of tactical depth will never exist, regardless of whether or not you use a battle grid.

That's a fairly strong assertion. Care to explain why you believe this?

[Kurald Galain]

That's a fairly strong assertion. Care to explain why you believe this?

Fundamentally, position becomes irrelevant if it's too easy to change position. For instance, if a fighter cannot take OAs, then in most cases you can just ignore him entirely and walk past him to where you need to be.

[kyoryu]

Fundamentally, position becomes irrelevant if it's too easy to change position. For instance, if a fighter cannot take OAs, then in most cases you can just ignore him entirely and walk past him to where you need to be.

Does spring attack negate OAs? I thought it just allowed for "broken" movement.

I'd agree that some kind of area threat is really necessary for tactical positioning to matter much.

[Craft (Cheese)]

There's more to shape than grids. A surprising amount of depth can be involved in a zone system, which also simplifies things nicely.

I don't deny that, but zones are necessarily less granular. I think a truly modular system should be able to support both though.

[Kurald Galain]

Does spring attack negate OAs? I thought it just allowed for "broken" movement.

No, but the 5E playtest doesn't have OAs either. Spring attack does negate numerous other positioning issues.

[Zombimode]

Fundamentally, position becomes irrelevant if it's too easy to change position. For instance, if a fighter cannot take OAs, then in most cases you can just ignore him entirely and walk past him to where you need to be.

I dunno. Having played 2e for years the "I block [this passage]" and "I position my self in the way between [this creature/object] and [those enemies]" approach has worked pretty well.

[Knaight]

I seem to recall this argument from a prior thread. Are there any examples of systems that successfully implement a "zone" system?

FATE is the obvious example, but I don't think it's the only one.

[Kurald Galain]

I dunno. Having played 2e for years the "I block [this passage]" and "I position my self in the way between [this creature/object] and [those enemies]" approach has worked pretty well.

Sure. But what we were talking about is how grid-based combat doesn't necessarily add tactical depth, for instance if it lacks OAs and has free Spring Attack.

[Ziegander]

I dunno. Having played 2e for years the "I block [this passage]" and "I position my self in the way between [this creature/object] and [those enemies]" approach has worked pretty well.

That only works if there is no room for [those enemies] to move around you to get to [this creature/object]. In D&D Next, enemies can walk right past you to attack [this creature/object] much easier than they could in 3.5 or 4e, and in a huge variety of situations there is next to nothing you can do about it. At least, as represented in the playtest document.

[Craft (Cheese)]

IIRC, Opportunity Attacks are supposed to be a feat in 5E rather than something everyone automatically gets. Definitely going to be a tax for everyone who wants to be anywhere near melee range, but we'll see how it turns out. The problem with that approach is none of the pregen characters have it, so we don't really get to see the effects of the system.

[Ziegander]

Of course, there's no real need to protect your allies by "standing in the way," if the Wizard is behind you, and can move and cast a spell without provoking attacks of opportunity.

Let's say the encounter pans out like this. You and the Wizard next to each other, and the Badguy is 15ft away. The Wizard wins initiative and moves 30ft away and casts a spell at Badguy. Badguy goes next and moves 30ft toward the Wizard, moving 15ft past you, and attacks you on the way. You finally go, you move 30ft toward the Wizard, placing yourself, again, in between Badguy and the Wizard, and you also attack Badguy on the way. If you are able to keep this up, Badguy will never be able to hit the Wizard.

[kyoryu]

Of course, there's no real need to protect your allies by "standing in the way," if the Wizard is behind you, and can move and cast a spell without provoking attacks of opportunity.

Let's say the encounter pans out like this. You and the Wizard next to each other, and the Badguy is 15ft away. The Wizard wins initiative and moves 30ft away and casts a spell at Badguy. Badguy goes next and moves 30ft toward the Wizard, moving 15ft past you, and attacks you on the way. You finally go, you move 30ft toward the Wizard, placing yourself, again, in between Badguy and the Wizard, and you also attack Badguy on the way. If you are able to keep this up, Badguy will never be able to hit the Wizard.

"given an infinitely large space to maneuver in".

also known as "refer to Roy leading the spiked chain guy off the cliff".